State Attorneys General Oppose Biden Administration’s Surrendering Authority to WHO

Republican state attorneys general have organized to resist the Biden administration’s potential moves to cede power to the World Health Organization (WHO).

“The current draft of the Pandemic Agreement purportedly serves as ‘negotiating text’ for international consideration,” Mr. Knudsen said. “Although the latest iteration is far better than prior versions, it’s still highly problematic. The fluid and opaque nature of these proceedings, moreover, could allow the most egregious provisions from past versions to return.”

Some of the “egregious provisions from the past,” Mr. Knudsen said, opened the door to “unprecedented and unconstitutional powers over the United States and her people.”

“Meanwhile, the WHO failed to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for its lies and deceptions during the pandemic,” the attorney general said. “Rather than learning from these failures, some inexplicably want to relinquish more power to unelected and unaccountable institutions.”

Mr. Knudsen added that he and the coalition of attorneys general oppose the accords because they would “transform the WHO from an advisory, charitable organization into the world’s governor of public health.”

Related Stories

“The WHO currently lacks authority to enforce its recommendations,” he said. “Under proposed IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty, however, the WHO’s Director-General would achieve the power to unilaterally declare a ‘public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)’ in one or more member nations.”

However, a PHEIC could be whatever the director-general decides, he said, like climate change, gun violence, and environmental issues.

“The more egregious versions of the proposals would authorize the director-general to dictate what must be done in response to a declared PHEIC,” he said. “In other words, America’s elected representatives would no longer set the nation’s public health policies. Even watered down, these proposals would inappropriately cede American sovereignty to the WHO.”

‘Global Surveillance Infrastructure’

He added that the federal government has no constitutional authority to allow an international body to make public health decisions.

“The U.S. The Constitution doesn’t vest responsibility for public health policy with the federal government,” Mr. Knudsen said. “It reserves those powers for the States. Even if the federal government had such power, Article II, Section 2 requires approval by the United States Senate.”

In addition, the proposed IHR amendments would set up a “global surveillance infrastructure” that would be defended as a tool to protect public health but in reality, it would be a means of control similar to the Chinese Communist Party’s social credit system, he said.

“The current draft instructs signatories to ‘cooperate, in accordance with national law, in preventing misinformation and disinformation,’” he noted. “This is particularly dangerous given that your administration pressured and encouraged social media companies to suppress free speech during COVID-19.”

AG Knudsen the pandemic spotlighted the WHO and other public health institution’s major problems that violated the rights of citizens.

There’s no doubt that the WHO needs to be reformed, he added.

“The proposed measures, however, would only exacerbate the WHO’s underlying problems and enable more civil liberties violations during future ‘emergencies,’” he said. “Accordingly, we will resist any attempt to enable the WHO to directly or indirectly set public policy for our citizens.”

‘Procedurally Illegal’

Valerie Borek, associate director and policy analyst for the medical freedom organization Stand for Health Freedom, told The Epoch Times that many lawmakers think they can solve the problem by simply defunding the WHO and that will take care of the issue.

“However, 80 percent of WHO funding comes from private sources, and domestically that approach has not been reliable,” Ms. Borek said. “WHO financing cuts that were on the table for the FY2024 US Budget got dropped. Defunding is not a viable option.” 

She said the United States is weeks away from the World Health Assembly’s (WHAs) vote on the pandemic treaty and amendments to the IHR.

However, Ms. Borek said, there are arguments that the 2022 amendments presented by the United States weren’t legally adopted, leaving some to question their validity, she said.

“There is no evidence of a vote by the WHA, instead the amendments were agreed to by a consensus in a plenary session that included only a fraction of member countries,” she said.

The 2022 IHR amendments changed the timeline for future amendments, she said.

“The Biden administration proposed countries have only six months to process changes and see them go into effect,” she said. “The process started as a two-year process. What passed was a one-year window. This is reckless in international law, in my opinion.”

She added the 2024 vote is “procedurally illegal.”

“Article 55 of the IHRs requires four months advance submission of any documents for consideration at the WHA,” she said. “That would mean we should have had a final treaty draft, and final compiled amendment proposals by Jan. 27, 2024. That deadline passed, of course. We do not have the final documents. Therefore, by the IHR, there should not be a vote.”

Undermining States’ Rights

Ms. Borek said there are over 300 amendments to the IHR being proposed, which could change over 50 percent of the document.

“A recent release of compiled amendments backed down dramatically on detailed language because countries still cannot come to an agreement even with extra time,” she said. “We are still waiting to see what will be presented at the WHA, and we know the intent to give more authority to the WHO is still there.”

The potential changes would classify the agreement as a treaty, which requires the consent of the Senate, she said.

“It would change our relationship with other countries, change our financial obligations, increase WHO authority over domestic policy, undermine states’ rights, and call for us to change domestic law,” she said. “The IHR was not treated as a treaty when it was adopted in 1969, nor when it has been amended since.”

The Epoch Times has contacted the Biden administration for comment.